Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang

[BiffF15]

Okay, I will anchor a awhile...

Yes P47,P38 was good weapons systems.The P51 was excellent. Especially the first 2 were big and expensive , used a lot of fuel so theywere good at many roles. How good?

They were good enough to not stop or switch production to another aircraft. Also, don't forget the US was supplying equipment to the Pacific theater as well as lend lease equipment. And with deep pockets you can "afford" to make expensive equipment.

The P51A in Raf use gave good service at armed reconnaissance but when intercepted by contemporary FWs was nothing special. I repeat it was the 2 stage supercharger that made the 51 special( and the lack of it in the 190)

I thought we were talking P-51D versus the Fw-190D (Name of the thread?). Also, "nothing special" means close to equal? Also, realize the P-51A was predominately used in a recce role, which means singletons, which means easier kills...

I directly question the ability of the p38l to execute low level roles when facing D9s with ADI ,decent building quality and decent pilots. Against D13s or Ta152H would be in trouble at all altitude

Confirm when Fw-190D9s actually flew with an operational ADI with fluid in the tanks? Also, build quality was what is was in a wartime environment for the side crouched on the defense. Reference my earlier remarks asking why it was that Germany was getting bombed... There was something along the lines of 40 D13s delivered (my favorite longnose variant) and had absolutely no measurable impact on the war. Are we talking what really happened or what could have happened?

I also question the ability of the P47 N to perform low and medium level roles against the latest members of the Dora family, especially if we provide both types with the same fuel

But the point is the Allied side had tons of better fuel, and the Axis side had almost no fuel of any type. The P-47N was made to go further than it's earlier versions, and oh by the way was a better performer. I would imagine flying from Tinian to Japan and back in a plane with a motor known to take extreme damage and still get you home might be a good thing.

I don t credit the P51 as a great fighter bomber. Both in ww2 and in korea ,proved so vulnerable to flak that it s unsuitable for the role.
You are a person of great scientific knowledge, but Brown flew them all! I believe his opinion has some weight!

I agree with you that Browns opine carries some serious weight, but no one is perfect. I don't agree with some of his findings or assumptions, and that's okay to.

I believe the 190 was a decent weapon system too.it was small, cheap, very easy to be serviced, low pilot workload .

Yes, it was a good product for a country struggling to survive. Cheap as Germany teetered on the edge of collapse, and low pilot workload since you were putting guys in it who would barely qualify as a pilot, let alone a fighter pilot with a chance of survival.

Could be an air superiority fighter, a bomber interceptor, a CAS aircraft,a torpedo bomber, a long range Fighter bomber(190G), an anti tank aircraft, a recce aircraft. It was proven that additionally to the standard internal fuel capacity could have wing tanks and rear fuselage tank. When it finally recieved a 2 stage supercharger was almost equal to the latest alleid fighters
I say almost, because it still retained the obsolete wing profile

I think the Fw-190D series was a great design, by a very talented designer, and exactly what Germany needed. I also think that it was a better plane than the Me-109 and should have taken some of that production resources. However, per my previous post it was designed to go 30 laps in the race, and the Mustang was designed to go 100 laps, and that they were very close in performance is a testament to the North American and Rolls Royce.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[stona]

However, per my previous post it was designed to go 30 laps in the race, and the Mustang was designed to go 100 laps, and that they were very close in performance is a testament to the North American design team.

And Rolls Royce

Cheers

Steve

 

[BiffF15]

And Rolls Royce

Cheers

Steve

Fixed!

 

[CORSNING]

You know, I believe I forgot to mention the fact that the German fighter pilot
seats were tilted back compared to most Allied pilot seats. (Forgive me if
that is wrong, that is just how I remember it). Then again, in June 1944
USAAF pilots were receiving G-suits. Now that was a big advantage that
allowed much higher g-maneuvers without blacking out.

 

[Shortround6]

"Obviously a d9 with 2100hp dry and 2300hp with adi would be quite more capable than historicaly.On 150 fuel would be propably over 2400hp

Yes they did not suffer from materials shortages. But they also did not re designed the engine. They made use of captured tools and reproduced the german design"

By 1948 they were offering co-axial contra-rotating propellers on the inverted V-12 and a 24 cylinder vertical H engine using Jumo 213 cylinder banks. At some point they had a tandem V-24 engine, one Inverted V behind the other. By 1953 they were offering a compound engine with the exhaust going through a blow-down turbine coupled to the crankshaft with 2650hp for take-off so it sounds like they were doing some development.

When you use high PN fuel to give higher boost you need to be sure the engine will stand up to the strain (higher pressure in the cylinders) and the higher heat load. For instance going from 52in MAP to 58in MAP (11lb boost to 14lbs boost ) means burning over 11% more fuel in the cylinders per revolution. Maybe the cooling system can handle the load, maybe it can't. Cooling system means wet or dry liners and cooling of the cylinder head/exhaust valve area, not just radiator and pumps.

 

[GregP]

About the answer I figured you'd give, Tomo. And don't worry about the reply. I don't care.

You seem to be on a hair trigger and want to fight all the time, for no reason. Why? I don't. I have nothing impolite to say to you. Generally, I like your posts and consider you one of the solid, knowledgeable members here. Why can't you be at least friendly?

Here's what I see:

Fw 190 D-9: Empty: 7,694 lbs; Normal: 9,413 lbs; Maximum: 10,670 lbs; Max Speed: 426 mph @ 21,655 ft; Range: 519 mi; Service Ceiling: 39,370 ft

P-51D: Empty: 7,635 lbs (lighter); Normal: 9,200 lbs (lighter); Maximum: 12,100 lbs; Max Speed: 437 to 440 mph at 25,000 ft, depending on report. Assume 437; Range: 1,650 with tanks; Service Ceiling: 41,900 ft. The extra max weight was all fuel, and that gave a LONG range when required. You could NOT have replaced the P-51D with the Fw 190 D-9; it couldn't do the job under any circumstances of which I am aware (insufficient range). The converse is not true. The P-51D could have replaced the Fw 190 D-9 and not much would have been lost, while great range would have been gained.

Armament goes to the Fw 190 D-9 all the way, for sheer destructive power, but the P-51D was adequate for the fight. Production numbers are as I said before 11 to 2 for the P-51D, roughly. Not all of them got to Europe, but there were more P-51Ds around than Fw 190D-9s in the air, always. That makes a LOT of difference in a real war. Not in a video game or one-on-one. Particularly, if the people with the larger number of fighters have the fuel to fly them at will, and they did. The converse is just not true. The Germans basically ran out of fuel at the front line airfields in late May 1945. That's why we destroyed so many on the ground in April. They weren't flying. Ergo, no help to the war effort. Had nothing to do with the willingness to fly and fight ... but you DO need fuel to fly.

Pilots: I'd say the Germans were better when the "Experts" were flying (much more experience), but the Allies had better pilots (late war) on average (more experience on average), if only due to more training and nobody bombing us while in pilot training. We also had a training PLAN and program. We flew in LARGE formations as the war drew down, making an attack on the fighter escorts somewhat suicidal for the most part and an attack on the bombers not much less risky.

One on one: Fw 190 D-9 was a wonderful fighter. Good climb, good speed, great armament, robust, and well-designed. The P-51D was also a wonderful fighter, with slightly less-impressive armament but also with the ability to kill anything it encountered, albeit with probably more ammo fired. They were close enough that the pilots SHOULD have made the difference, one-on-one. I consider the Fw 190 D-9 to be the best the Germans fielded in numbers, and it WAS a good one. The best fighter they fielded of the piston variety was undoubtedly the Ta-152, probably the H for high altitude and the C for medium altitudes. There were never enough of either fighter to make a big difference in the outcome, but they were impressive for sheer engineering and performance, particularly the Ta-152. Had it achieved mass production, things might have been a LOT more interesting.

I wish the aircraft family had survived the war to a much greater degree. Real WWII fighters are wonderful to work on and keep flying. It would be a privilege to work on a Focke-Wulf, especially a real one.

Oh yeah, the Ta-152 has no bearing on the thread? Are you serious? The Ta-152 was an Fw 190 D model that was "improved," so it most certainly DOES relate to the thread. It was a wonder plane, but without any major production (about 42 - 43 delivered, with more airframes waiting for engines and props). That alone makes it a non-player. Had it been built in numbers, it might have been a game changer. It wasn't in the end. The Ta 152 combat record was very ordinary, probably due to the war situation more than to any operational reason. There WERE thousands of Allied fighters flying about versus the 42 or so Ta 152s. That makes a huge difference in operations, normally speaking. It was a superb aircraft, in every sense of the word. It just wasn't a factor in the war. In every other sense, it was a great fighter, if ever there was one.

I think in terms of war contribution, not individual performance, because that is what wins wars. You might have the best airplane in a group of 45 Ta-152s, but if you come up against 800 good fighters (maybe P-51Ds) from the enemy side, it might not matter much in the end. And it didn't.

The Bf 109 gave a great contribution to the German war effort. It didn't win the air war, but was probably the best fighter of all times, if all the victories get counted correctly. Some days, your best doesn't quite make it happen. Doesn't mean the equipment OR the personnel were faulty. It only means you lost when it was over. When it happens, get on with life and move forward. Hopefully, world war is a thing of the past. Doesn't mean we should forget it.

 

[drgondog]

Yes P47,P38 was good weapons systems.The P51 was excellent. Especially the first 2 were big and expensive , used a lot of fuel so theywere good at many roles. How good?
The P51A in Raf use gave good service at armed reconnaissance but when intercepted by contemporary FWs was nothing special. I repeat it was the 2 stage supercharger that made the 51 special( and the lack of it in the 190)
I directly question the ability of the p38l to execute low level roles when facing D9s with ADI ,decent building quality and decent pilots. Against D13s or Ta152H would be in trouble at all altitude
I also question the ability of the P47 N to perform low and medium level roles against the latest members of the Dora family, especially if we provide both types with the same fuel
I don t credit the P51 as a great fighter bomber. Both in ww2 and in korea ,proved so vulnerable to flak that it s unsuitable for the role.
You are a person of great scientific knowledge, but Brown flew them all! I believe his opinion has some weight!

I believe the 190 was a decent weapon system too.it was small, cheap, very easy to be serviced, low pilot workload .
Could be an air superiority fighter, a bomber interceptor, a CAS aircraft,a torpedo bomber, a long range Fighter bomber(190G), an anti tank aircraft, a recce aircraft. It was proven that additionally to the standard internal fuel capacity could have wing tanks and rear fuselage tank. When it finally recieved a 2 stage supercharger was almost equal to the latest alleid fighters
I say almost, because it still retained the obsolete wing profile

Dedalos - I mostly agree your points about FW 190D when operating in best conditions available to it in last four months of the war.

Please note that I said "more or less equal", not superior, in my remarks about full envelope air combat. Note that a P-47N or P-38J/L or P-51 with bomb load is using all internal fuel for the 250-350 mile combat radius and extremely light for optimal maneuverability in the low level envelope. All the 8th/9th AF P-38J/L, P-47D/M performed well against the FW 190D. I am not saying superior, but equal, and the pilots made the difference. If the P-47N was carrying bombs in FB role, it should have performed better than the D at low level after dropping loads.

Amusingly, the Mustang I and IA had many survivors at the end of WWII - primarily because of the performance of the Allison engine and overall capability at low level.The armed reconnaissance role performed by them was one of the most hazardous of WWII. I have no idea what the answer is but I wonder how many survived as a percentage of production for the three years of continuous combat and how that compares to FW 190A-5 or Spit IX contemporaries.

As to 'great fighter bomber' (or not), the P-51D had very close to the same loss per sortie ratio as the F4U in Korea and the F-105 in Vietnam, before anti Sam tactics were introduced in late 1966. (As an aside, the US has never produced a tougher airplane than the F-105).The capability didn't change, but the threat environment post WWII increased greatly.The capability in WWII was excellent, particularly when compared to Spitfire, Bf 109, FW 190A/D, Hurricane, A6M, P-40, Yak 3, Laag 7, Ju-87, Me 110, etc.

To the last point about Eric Brown. IMO, there is no better expert to comment on the flying qualities of any WWII aircraft in comparison with each other. Our debate was the ranking in comparison and I focused on 'Important combined with performance'. With due respect to the F6F, both the FM2 and F4U could have performed the Carrier and land based mission with nearly the same results as F6F, Neither the P-38H/J (until J-25), nor the P-47D were up to the challenge of prosecuting a.) the destruction of the LW over its own airspace, and b.) supporting the strategic daylight bombing campaign before D-Day. Post D-Day was irrelevant if the SHAEF had determined the invasion was too risky based on LW existing strength, as mid July was the latest possible window for cross Channel attack. The weather almost doomed the invasion as it was.

 

[tomo pauk]

The normal jumo 213A could not use the C3 fuel. Some late D9s, on the eastern front, may have used some c3, and that produced the best performance for the D9. As far as i know even the late war C3 was inferior to the 100/150 fuel that the americans had.

Seems like D-9 was succesfully tested with C3 fuel: link (pdf)
Already in 1943 the German C3 fuel was rated as (for rich rating) 'better than 125 grade' (>125 grade) by Allied 'chemical intelligence':
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf

The 190 was carrying 150 kgr of armor.The p51?

Weight - I don't know. It carried front and back metal armor, plus front bullet-proof glass.

P51 did not have turbo but did have 2 stage supercharger.The 190C turbo was not produced mainlybecause the lack of raw materials
The surfaces quality of the p51 was far better.German factories simply coul not spend time polishing and sanding the wings. Actually did not even have the rubber to seal the gap between the engine and the wing. And they were obligated to apply camouflage paint adding weight and drag.

The British used 'painted' Mustangs, IIRC there was barely any speed loss.
The way Germans were installing engine cowlings, ie. those were attached to the engine ('motorfeste Motorverkleidung') that, even when good rubber was used, was draggier than the Allied system where the engine cowling was attached to the 'fixed' parts of engine compartment ('Zellenfeste Motorverkleidung'). Even if it enabled the 'power egg' engine installation easier to design. People at Focke Wulf judged that way of cowling will gain them 25 km/h on the Ta-152, for example.

The p51 clashed vs anything axis had with major advantages: Massive superiority in numbers, massive fuel advantage( 150 vs german 95 vs japanese 87), better pilots, ULTRA supporting its operations.

Ah, no. The Allied fuel, before mid-1944, was the 100/130 (lean/rich). German fuel was 96/130+ (lean/rich). Japanese were using 92 oct + water-alc injection. The great numerical advantage is also a myth, at least before mid-1944. Eg. during the big week, USAF used 73-150 P-51s, that did more damage to the LW than 750+ of P-47s and P-38s combined, vs. hundreds of LW 1-engine fighters.

 

[Milosh]

Wasn't German a/c paint smoother than Allied paint?

 

[tomo pauk]

About the answer I figured you'd give, Tomo. And don't worry about the reply. I don't care.

You seem to be on a hair trigger and want to fight all the time, for no reason. Why? I don't. I have nothing impolite to say to you. Generally, I like your posts and consider you one of the solid, knowledgeable members here. Why can't you be at least friendly?
...

Sorry that you count me as the one wanting to fight all the time. I just don't like to be accused for muddling with facts (without support for the accusation), and can be more than friendly when that does not happen.

 

[GregP]

Good answer, Tomo.

Glad to hear it, because I probably muddle the facts more often than you do, but that happens in discussions. It wasn't intended as a specific criticism, more of an observation on ONE tiny subject. And I could have been wrong then, too. As I stated above, your posts are usually quite good and to the point.

As a general rule, I think ALL the production fighters were pretty good. If they weren't, they wouldn't have made production. There is certainly room for a dissenting opinion, and it might be correct.

One-on-one, I'd call the Fw 190 D-9 versus the P-51 a dead even heat. Both good, solid aircraft. Nobody (or few) ever accused the Germans of making inferior equipment! My own thoughts would be that the Fw 190 D-9 would out-roll the P-51D (based on wartime observations of Fw rolling ability), but the P-51D would out-turn the Fw 190 D-9 (based on 20% lower wing loading and decent airfoils for both).

Cheers.

P.S. It is off-subject, but from your signature it appears you live in Poland. What is the Polish Air Force experience with the F-16? Do they like it or not? Maybe a dedicated answer in the modern forum?

 

[dedalos]

Seems like D-9 was succesfully tested with C3 fuel: link (pdf)
As far as i know the vast majority of the D9 units did not had the option to use the C3 even if available
Already in 1943 the German C3 fuel was rated as (for rich rating) 'better than 125 grade' (>125 grade) by Allied 'chemical intelligence':
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Tom Reels/Linked/A5464/A5464-0638-0654 Item 6A.pdf
As far as i know the C3 never reached the quality of the american 150 octane fuel, and in any case, C3 production was so limited that several powerful engines that required C3 did not enter production




Weight - I don't know. It carried front and back metal armor, plus front bullet-proof glass.



The British used 'painted' Mustangs, IIRC there was barely any speed loss.
Well, i have read many times that several types of aircrafts removed the camouflage paint because of the weight and drag
The way Germans were installing engine cowlings, ie. those were attached to the engine ('motorfeste Motorverkleidung') that, even when good rubber was used, was draggier than the Allied system where the engine cowling was attached to the 'fixed' parts of engine compartment ('Zellenfeste Motorverkleidung'). Even if it enabled the 'power egg' engine installation easier to design. People at Focke Wulf judged that way of cowling will gain them 25 km/h on the Ta-152, for example.
Dietmar Harmann in his Ta 152 book, in the chapter about future improvements, speaks about a new "integrated" cowling. Is that the same with what you describe? In which source did you read the 25km/h possible gain? If true , means that the production cowling was terrible. Generally the "power egg" system did made production and servicing easier, but caused terrible performance loss because not only, as you say , it was draggier it was also heavier. That s way the D series had the rear fuselage extension



Ah, no. The Allied fuel, before mid-1944, was the 100/130 (lean/rich). German fuel was 96/130+ (lean/rich). Japanese were using 92 oct + water-alc injection.
Very few BF109 units used C3, the vast majority used B4. The same with the Dora units. The Anton used C3, but only after mid 44 took advantage of it, and even then, the terrible supercharger crippled its performance
A KI 84 with the homare engine designed for 150 octane fuel would be amazing dog fighter!Even with C3 would be very good
The great numerical advantage is also a myth, at least before mid-1944. Eg. during the big week, USAF used 73-150 P-51s, that did more damage to the LW than 750+ of P-47s and P-38s combined, vs. hundreds of LW 1-engine fighters
I respect your opinion but i simply disagree. RAF and the american air force massively outnumbered LW fighters. The orders of battle and the number of sorties prove this for every period of the war after 1940.

 

[Greyman]

The British used 'painted' Mustangs, IIRC there was barely any speed loss.

Reading up on a B-17 document at www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org ...

Surface roughness of an unpainted B-17: 15 micro inches
Surface roughness of a painted B-17: 50 micro inches
Weight of paint: 75 pounds

Despite being heavier and over 3 times as 'rough' - the painted B-17 was 2 to 5 mph faster then the unpainted aircraft (depending on the altitude). They figured because it filled in all the seams, joints, rivet heads, etc.

Now as far as I understand the 'unpainted' late war USAAF aircraft did have compositions applied to them to fill (all?) the little bits and improve the overall finish. How much of a net weight and smoothness gain this was over a painted aircraft I have no idea.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_42-97656_Eng-47-1722-A.pdf

 

[Shortround6]

If a B-17 only took 75lbs of paint to cover the performance gain for single engine fighter doing without paint would be minuscule.
Some large transport planes went without paint but put the difference in weight toward higher payload or fuel, but again the surface area of large transports is much larger than the surface area of a fighter.

I would note that some engines responded to 150 PN fuel much better than others. The P-47Ds were limited in time in their use of higher power settings allowed by both water injection and/or 150PN fuel. While high speed showed a nice improvement without much restriction (except fuel consumption) the use of high power in climb called for a careful eye on the temperature gauge.
The "C" series engines used in the P-47M and N had much more finning for cooling and much stronger internal parts. This allowed for more power to made using the 150 PN fuel than the "B" series engines could be rated for. Development of the "C" series started in 1940. One might say that the later "CA", "CB" and "E" engines were designed with the higher than 100/130 fuel in mind.

In fact most, if not all, air cooled radial engines required new versions with major modifications to make use of 145-150PN fuel.
It took Wright until 1947 to produce engines rated for 115/145 fuel. Not sure about Bristol but if so they were definitely post war (sources disagree) but very late model Centaurus (660 series?) and Hercules (760 series?) Please note that a 760 Series Hercules gained over 500lbs in weight from a MK I Hercules.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Greg, Tomo, can you two kiss and make up?

 

[GregP]

This is a family forum, so I'll decline the kiss part of it ... Tomo will, too ...

 

[tomo pauk]

Greg, Tomo, can you two kiss and make up?

Yes. I'm sorry for coming out that harsh.

 

[CORSNING]

Ahem, for those who weren't paying attention when I sent Post # 514.
" The standard production model of the Fw 190D-9 had a Jumo 213A
engine operating at 1.8 ata boost with { B4 fuel } and designed to use MW 50.

I will be sending notes home to the parents of those that don't pay attention
in class.

 

[Robert Porter]

It was just getting good, got the popcorn!

 

[CORSNING]

Mr. Porter, please inform the rest of the class when you have made
the trip to the store to acquire the correct quantity of beer to supply
the rest of the class to go along with that popcorn sir.